c. Chapterhouse’s Defense of Preemption Should Be Dismissed Chapterhouse’s argument why Games Workshop’s claim under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., should be dismissed appears to be a theory in search of an affirmative defense. The offending conduct as specified in the statute all concerns conduct such as passing off, creating a likelihood of confusion; use of deceptive representations and so forth.

Ltd. P’ship v. Zadikoff, 10 F. Supp. 2d 922, 929 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“[Claims] based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq., and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., must rise or fall based on the Lanham Act claim. This is because the legal inquiry is the same under the Lanham Act as under the Consumer Fraud Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”)

Danisco asserts false advertising claims under: (1) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Compl. ¶ 33); (2) the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 (“IUDTPA”) (id. ¶ 41); and (3) the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 (“ICFA”) (see id.

II. Plaintiff’s First Count Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not Oreck’s Competitor And Cannot Allege Danger Of Future Harm Plaintiff’s Count I purports to state a claim under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 510/1 et seq. (2010) (“IDTPA”), also known as the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“IUDTPA”). However, Plaintiff and the members of the putative class lack standing to bring a claim under that act.

COUNTERCLAIM PARAGRAPH 95. The acts of MMU and MMJ complained of herein constitute a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS §§ 510/1 et seq), and have caused and are causing irreparable harm and damage to THE MIYANOS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. ANSWER: Denied.

COUNTERCLAIM PARAGRAPH 95. The acts of MMU and MMJ complained of herein constitute a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS §§ 510/1 et seq), and have caused and are causing irreparable harm and damage to THE MIYANOS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. ANSWER: Denied.

Miyano USA’s Booth Defendants’ Booth Defendants’ Activities Are Likely to Cause Confusion, Mistake or Deception 24. Defendants’ activities and use of Miyano USA’s “Miyano” trade name, MIYANO trademark, and the dominant portion of its Triangle Winged M mark are likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among consumers as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement or authorization of defendants and their business, constituting unfair competition and infringement of Miyano USA’s federal and common law rights in it’s “Miyano” trade name and MIYANO trademark and Triangle Winged M trademark and service mark in violation of §§ 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125) and Illinois’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS §§ 510/1 et seq. Plaintiff Miyano USA is Entitled to Injunctive Relief 25.